I am writing you today to try to
reach a compromise on the transit situation.

As you may be aware, counsel has
examined the options that are available and has indicated it is very likely an
appeal of the decision of the Administrative Determination Review Committee
(ADRC) to Circuit Court would be successful. This is a road I am willing to
explore, but like you, I would rather work toward a solution together.

While I strongly disagree with the
ruling from the ADRC, and believe the committee's action was illegal and
political in nature, my biggest concern is the broader appeal process, the
message this appeal process sends to vendors and ultimately the detrimental
impact on our services.

Milwaukee County does not follow the
Administrative Appeal Process laid out in state statue (Chapter 68). In 1997,
then County Executive Tom Ament’s administration, proposed a different process
that is known as Chapter 110 and it was adopted by the Board. The County’s
Chapter 110 process currently does not specify qualifications, require
procurement expertise or require any specific skill set to hear a Chapter 110
procurement or contracting appeal. Lacking that requirement allows elected
officials and other individuals with limited to no expertise in procurement and
contracting, and with possible conflicts of interest, to hear these appeals.
Allowing elected officials to serve in this way is directly contrary to best
practice.

According to the American Bar
Association (ABA) [2000 Model Procurement Code for States and Local
Governments], appeals should be heard by a Chief Procurement Officer or someone
in a similar position. According to ABA Model Code, the County may also set up
a Procurement Appeals Panel to hear a subsequent appeal. The ABA recommends
that such a panel be made up of experts. If an aggrieved party disagrees with
county’s final decision, they can then appeal to court of law.

The National Institute of
Governmental Purchasing, Inc. (NIGP) agrees with the ABA’s best practices. NIGP
looked at some counties across the Country to see how they handle this issue.
They note that Waukesha, Wisconsin and Fairfax County, Virginia each have
single individual procurement experts hear all appeals. NIGP also looked at
Gwinnett County, Georgia, where any appeal goes directly to court of law. The
Interim County Attorney in Gwinnett County says that since that process was put
in place in the 1990’s only two decisions have been challenged in court. In
both cases the court sided with the County experts who awarded the original
contract.

Given this context, I am proposing
that we reach a solution that would allow us to move forward with a new RFP and
avoid a potential costly court action. I will commit that neither the DOT or I
will take this issue to court if a majority of the Board makes a commitment to
work with me and the Comptroller’s Office to change the Chapter 110 process to
follow best practices, including specifically to remove politicians from the
appeals process. If at least ten Supervisors will commit by March 19, 2014 to
changing this process as set forth above, we will not move forward with legal
action. This compromise will allow the DOT to move forward with reissuing the
RFP for transit with an improved and clear appeals process. My hope is that by
working together, we can together improve transit service for our community.

Sincerely,

Chris

Can you believe he called this threat a "compromise"?

And here’s how
Supervisor Tony Staskunas, a member of the review panel that rejected Abele’s
recommended contract, responded to Abele's threat:

County Executive Chris Abele

Office of the County Executive

901 North 9th Street – Room 306

Milwaukee, WI 53233

RE: Transit
Appeal / Procurement Process

Dear County Executive Abele:

I am responding to your email dated March 10, 2014, relative to the recently
completed Administrative Determination Review Committee decision of Milwaukee
County's transit contract. I am deeply disappointed by the tone set
by your email and the accusations and threats set forth in your email.

Specifically, your email states that you "believe the committee action was
illegal and political in nature". Isn't it possible for
someone to disagree with you without their disagreement being either political
or illegal. In my ten months on the Milwaukee County Board, my
perception is that just about every time that the Milwaukee County Board
disagreed with one of your positions, the Board's conduct was either
"illegal", "political", or evidence of the "dysfunctional"
County Board. In my 25 years of public service I have learned that it is
possible for reasonable people to have differences of opinion on public policy
without one side or the other acting in an illegal, political, or dysfunctional
way, while continued use of such inflammatory language only exacerbates the
already poor relations between the executive branch and legislative
branch. The reality is that you are also a politician and that your
actions are no more or no less political than those of County Board members

The Administrative Determination Review Committee took its role very
seriously. We were advised every step of the way by County
Corporation Counsel Paul Bargren. We issued detailed and specific
findings and conclusions. The Committee set forth a simple road map for
the Department of Transportation to make changes and corrections to the RFP and
to the RFP process. I firmly believe that if those changes are made to
the RFP and RFP process that the Department of Transportation should be in a
position to issue a new RFP for the transit contract very quickly. Since
the decision was issued on February 20, 2014, I have been open and willing to
meet with both you and the Department of Transportation to give you additional
guidance as to how I believe the RFP and RFP process can be corrected so that
we can move forward and identify the most cost effective method to provide good
transit service to the residents of Milwaukee County. Your threats
of a lawsuit do not help this process, but only hinder the process.
Threats of litigation do not constitute "compromise" but serve
instead only to throw gas on the fire of an already difficult
situation.

You point out in your email that the administrative appeal process set forth in
Milwaukee County Ordinance Chapter 110 is flawed. Nevertheless, it is the
current law. It is the law that was very strictly followed by the
Administrative Determination Review Committee. I don't know why this
process was instituted in 1997, but perhaps it was for a good reason unknown to
both you and myself. You imply that by not following Chapter 68
that the County and County Board violated the statute when you know, or should
know, that Section 68.16, Stats., specifically allows a governing body to opt
out and enact its own ordinance. Instead, you are asking the County
Board, in advance, with no study or public input, to commit to a process using
unknown and unelected bureaucrats to make decisions rather than the officials
elected by the people to make these decisions.

You have requested that board members "commit" to certain ultimatums
or you will commence a lawsuit. I can't prevent you from commencing
this lawsuit, however mistaken I believe the lawsuit to be, but I will commit
to working with you and your office relative to a review of the County's
administrative appeal process. If the administrative appeal process
can be handled in a better, more efficient way, I will certainly be open to
changes to that process. However, I cannot commit in advance to a
specific outcome, and I'm not sure how any supervisor could commit to a
specific outcome since we haven't yet studied and discussed any of the
necessary information to make an informed decision.

County Executive Abele, as we move forward on the transit contract and other
issues, I to respectfully ask that you please tone down your inflammatory and
personal rhetoric. People of good will can, and often do,
disagree. There is always a natural tension between the executive branch
and legislative branch of government. Personalizing our
disagreements doesn't make the situation any better and doesn't serve the
residents of Milwaukee County.​

Sincerely,

​Tony

Abele simply cannot
handle transparency, responsibility, or humility. Instead of learning from the
mistakes made during the RFP and correcting them, Abele is threatening to shut down a review
process that includes democratically elected supervisors. Remember: This is the
guy who wanted to give a half-billion-dollar contract to the lowest-scoring
bidder on the service and operations portion of the RFP. MV won the contract
because it low-balled its bid. Why would Milwaukee County transit riders and
taxpayers be thrilled to turn over our transit system to the operator who
clearly would provide worse service than all other bidders—including the
current operator?

I wish I could say
that this was the end of the story, but, unfortunately, it is to be continued.

Recent Blogs

Poll

Scott Walker has proposed virtually eliminating the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. If passed, do you believe that Walker’s proposal would directly or indirectly impact the health of you or your children?